Wisnu MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides organized parameter documentation, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a 6-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description does well by documenting all parameters thoroughly and mentioning the return format. However, it lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error handling. The presence of an output schema (indicated in context signals) means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but could still benefit from more operational guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics with the 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose, format, and defaults. With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. Examples like 'Paris' for location and format specifications for dates are particularly helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for available hotels in a location.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('hotels'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_destinations' or 'search_flights', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_destinations' or 'search_flights' to help the agent choose appropriately. The only implied usage is for hotel searches, but no context or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.